Inspector Of Police Uthukuli PS vs ALAGARSAMY Advocate - S Dhanapal — 463/2025
Case under Tn Prohibition Act Section 4(1)(C). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 11th March 2026.
STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case
CNR: TNTI230022512025
e-Filing Number
16-08-2025
Filing Number
2217/2025
Filing Date
16-08-2025
Registration No
463/2025
Registration Date
16-08-2025
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthukuli
Judge
1-District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
11th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Inspector Of Police Uthukuli PS (Police Station)
Adv. Additional Public Prosecutor
Respondent(s)
ALAGARSAMY Advocate - S Dhanapal
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Arguments
Trial
Appearance
Appearance
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 07-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 06-03-2026 | Trial |
| 05-03-2026 | Appearance |
| 04-02-2026 | Appearance |
Interim Orders
Summary: In this witness deposition (STC 463-2025) before the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthukuli, PW-1 testified that on 08.03.2025, police recovered 10 bottles of EXPRESS brandy (180 ML each) from the accused Azhagarsamy, who was illegally possessing liquor for sale without government authorization under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (TNP) Act. The court recorded the witness's testimony and cross-examination, noting procedural compliance issues regarding the seizure memo and lack of direct evidence of actual sale transactions by buyers. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In this witness deposition (STC 463-2025) before the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthukuli, PW-1 testified that on 08.03.2025, police recovered 10 bottles of EXPRESS brandy (180 ML each) from the accused Azhagarsamy, who was illegally possessing liquor for sale without government authorization under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition (TNP) Act. The court recorded the witness's testimony and cross-examination, noting procedural compliance issues regarding the seizure memo and lack of direct evidence of actual sale transactions by buyers. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts